Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wait you liked TFA? You didn't like R1?

TFA has major flaws. It tracks ANH to the point of absurdity - so closely, in fact, that Han Solo even has a line making fun of it. But TFA had only ONE job and that was to create a cast of new characters who were likable. And it succeeded in that. I could not wait to see more adventures with the new characters after watching TFA. In fact, I really could not wait, so I went to see TFA again in the theater and of course bought the movie on bluray. I think JJ totally whiffed on explaining what is going on in the setting but I figured, all in good time. What was important was, here are new characters that are great! Plus there were some genuinely exciting shots of space ships flying around (strangely absent from both R1 and TLJ). I give it a B+.

R1 is a great looking film. But the characters are wafer thin. Despite that, the script asks the characters to be very passionate. It's like asking someone to catch a baseball in a tissue. The plot meanders all over the place because none of the first two acts mean anything or are necessary to the premise. When the actual movie begins in the third act there is practically no tension because the Empire is colossally ineffective. Yes, the characters die one-by-one but this seems to be because there is nothing more for them to do. Before that moment when they become useless, they are (in two cases, literally) unkillable. Finally, the movie sort of admits none of this is interesting and it was all just an allusion to a much better movie made forty years earlier, with a hilariously over the top (basically pornographic) Vader scene and a hideously embarassing CGI Princess Leia. I give it a C-, which seems generous - but it was very pretty, after all, and I thought Director Krennic was a wonderful depiction of the Empire as callous, ruthless, but ultimately petty.

 Manchu wrote:
TFA has major flaws. It tracks ANH to the point of absurdity - so closely, in fact, that Han Solo even has a line making fun of it. But TFA had only ONE job and that was to create a cast of new characters who were likable. And it succeeded in that. I could not wait to see more adventures with the new characters after watching TFA. In fact, I really could not wait, so I went to see TFA again in the theater and of course bought the movie on bluray. I think JJ totally whiffed on explaining what is going on in the setting but I figured, all in good time. What was important was, here are new characters that are great! Plus there were some genuinely exciting shots of space ships flying around (strangely absent from both R1 and TLJ). I give it a B+.{/quote]
Of the new cast, I found one ok (the ST guy). The other two felt like bad knock offs of SW characters. More importantly:
The bad guys. Oh jeez they were terrible. They weren't even bad, just pathetic. EMO Anakin Not Vader. Lame Not Palpatine. Really Not DeathStar 3.
They were the epitomy of my problem with most kids comic book movies now. Its all about the "good guy." The BGs are almost an after thought.

R1 is a great looking film. But the characters are wafer thin. Despite that, the script asks the characters to be very passionate. It's like asking someone to catch a baseball in a tissue. The plot meanders all over the place because none of the first two acts mean anything or are necessary to the premise. When the actual movie begins in the third act there is practically no tension because the Empire is colossally ineffective. Yes, the characters die one-by-one but this seems to be because there is nothing more for them to do. Before that moment when they become useless, they are (in two cases, literally) unkillable. Finally, the movie sort of admits none of this is interesting and it was all just an allusion to a much better movie made forty years earlier, with a hilariously over the top (basically pornographic) Vader scene and a hideously embarassing CGI Princess Leia. I give it a C-, which seems generous - but it was very pretty, after all, and I thought Director Krennic was a wonderful depiction of the Empire as callous, ruthless, but ultimately petty.

R1 was a war movie with half decent bad guys again. Greatest ever? hardly. But fun menacing bad guys.

I have the same issue with so many of these genre movies having weak, afterthought villains. That's why I like Kylo Ren in TFA. He's not inspiring or anything but at least he is somewhat complex, in that he is a tryhard and wannabe. I also liked Hux as a lunatic/fanatic. Snoke is dumb. Even if it made no narrative sense, I enjoyed watching him die in TLJ. As for the good guys: I really enjoyed the dynamic between Finn and Poe at the beginning of the film, that felt so fun and fresh to me. I figured we would learn more about Rey in Episode VIII so I definitely gave TFA a pass there. But Daisy was so likeable, it was hard not to. The final fight in TFA is top drawer Star Wars, thanks to the characterization rather than effects or choreography or whatever.

I can't agree that anyone was menacing in R1, except for maybe Forest Whittaker as a crazy guy who tortures people for no reason (which he suddenly wasn't in his next scene). The Death Troopers look so cool but in the very first scene of the movie a civilian easily gets the drop on them. As usual, a bad script makes fun of itself: Krennic turns to the audience and asks "why aren't we doing anything?" as the Rebels assault the super secure Imperial base.

 Manchu wrote:
I keep waiting for one person I know IRL to say they liked TLJ. I am careful not to pre-load conversations about movies, especially ones I don't like, because I like to hear (so far as possible) unvarnished opinions - it's very instructive. For example, a girl at another party was explaining why she liked the ending of R1 (something I hated) and gave a very compelling reason: she had no idea where the movie fit into the rest of the Star Wars movies until the very end.

The only person I know who really liked TLJ is my 9 year old niece. I know a bunch of people who were 'meh' about it and several 30-40 year old guys who love SW who hated it.

Besides me*, the only people I know in real life who loved TLJ were either: 1) children, 2) smitten with porgs to the point of tears, 3) prequel apologists. I went to parties with two different groups of friends in January, and both times TLJ came up in conversation as a franchise killer. (The prequel apologists weren't at those parties.)

*I love TLJ as space opera spectacle. It's also bad Star Wars.

As for TFA, I liked Ren a lot, enjoyed the Jakku scenes and loved the actors' performances if not all their characters, but the negatives outweighed all of that and the direction, pacing, and JJ factor (mystery boxes, weak ending, no sense of scale or how characters interact to make scenes that drive the movie) completely ruined it for me. The prequels made me not a fan of Star Wars and TFA made me not a fan of Star Wars all over again...

...However, I loved R1. I tend to agree with the structural problems in the film, although I think a lot of the actors did great jobs making unlikeable characters more likeable. I tend to think R1, like ROTJ, is less than the sum of its parts but some of the good parts are so good they make the movie for me. It also felt like actual Star Wars, which was a nice change of pace.

Leaving the theater, I liked Solo almost as much as R1. I'll definitely buy it and rewatch it, and maybe my views on it will change. I would love to see more Star Wars movies in the Solo mold, and it saddens me that we may never get any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we agree that is the "don't choke on your aspirations" of Solo?

Let's not turn the solo thread into another TLJ thread.

Well, I can agree that R1 "felt like" Star Wars, or rather, felt like it was set in the authentic Star Wars setting. And I love the scene where Krennic goes to see Darth Vader. Visually, it was so thematic. It had a touch of humor. It was a great character moment for Krennic, who is the only developed character in R1. Other than Ben Mendelsohn, I think the only other good performances were Mads Mikkelsen and Alan Tudyk. I didn't care that much about Mr. Tudyk's character but he sure made it work, as far as it possibly could. Felicity Jones was simply awful, like she hated the job. R1 is a movie I feel could have been a lot better, whereas TLJ just is what it is, a rotten mess from beginning to end with a couple of charming but totally inappropriate puppy love scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren.

Solo combined the exciting action and charming characters I liked from TFA with the gritty look of R1. Plus, like I said, at least in Ron Howard's version, Solo spends a lot of time on characterization and steady plot progression. I know critics have a hard time writing hot takes on conventional movies but yeah there is nothing wrong with getting the basics down very solidly so that when you have those pay off moments (Han shot first) they actually feel like pay offs.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, I can agree that R1 "felt like" Star Wars, or rather, felt like it was set in the authentic Star Wars setting. And I love the scene where Krennic goes to see Darth Vader. Visually, it was so thematic. It had a touch of humor. It was a great character moment for Krennic, who is the only developed character in R1. Other than Ben Mendelsohn, I think the only other good performances were Mads Mikkelsen and Alan Tudyk. I didn't care that much about Mr. Tudyk's character but he sure made it work, as far as it possibly could. Felicity Jones was simply awful, like she hated the job. R1 is a movie I feel could have been a lot better, whereas TLJ just is what it is, a rotten mess from beginning to end with a couple of charming but totally inappropriate puppy love scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren.

Solo combined the exciting action and charming characters I liked from TFA with the gritty look of R1. Plus, like I said, at least in Ron Howard's version, Solo spends a lot of time on characterization and steady plot progression. I know critics have a hard time writing hot takes on conventional movies but yeah there is nothing wrong with getting the basics down very solidly so that when you have those pay off moments (Han shot first) they actually feel like pay offs.

I've not heard many reviews dissing Solo, other than being light summer entertainment - which frankly what the SW movies always were and were designed to be. Personally I am looking forward to renting it.

But the competition has upped its game summer blockbuster wise from when SW was the massive big dog-and Disney had previously been wise in running them in December. Running a SW now against these other tentpoles just divides those tentpole dollars. Frankly I was way more interested in Deadpool and Incredibles.

I do wonder what was driving the push vs. running Solo in December or just when there were less tentpoles running. Are they planning on another SW movie in December? Maybe Disney is planning other tentpoles for December this year?

 gorgon wrote:
Most of my friends and co-workers aren't big SW fans. I haven't talked to one person who's displayed anything close to the venom the movie receives online. The dislikes are more of the 'meh' variety than 'TLJ is a travesty and I'm going to outline why in great detail for you'.

I'm curious. How many of those 'meh's do you think are going to show up for Episode 9 in the theater? It doesn't matter if a potential customer passionately hates a product or merely is disinterested, they're still not buying your product.

So, I think Rogue One and Solo may make an interesting contrast, in terms of being merely "OK" Movies.

Rogue one had a slow first half, and about two characters too many in the main ensemble. However, it also had some of the best star wars action with the battle of Scarif, and Darth Vader steals every scene he is in. So it has high highs, and low lows.

Solo, in contrast, is fairly evenly okay throughout. Nothing particularly bad, but no moment that makes me go "Wow".

The answer to the question "Why did this film come out in May?" might be that they were wanting to increase the frequency of Star Wars films; one big one at Christmas, and a "spinoff" in spring/summer. Apparently there's no appetite for that.

 Vulcan wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Most of my friends and co-workers aren't big SW fans. I haven't talked to one person who's displayed anything close to the venom the movie receives online. The dislikes are more of the 'meh' variety than 'TLJ is a travesty and I'm going to outline why in great detail for you'.

I'm curious. How many of those 'meh's do you think are going to show up for Episode 9 in the theater? It doesn't matter if a potential customer passionately hates a product or merely is disinterested, they're still not buying your product.

Answering that question is like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone who thought it was just okay will be back for Episode IX because it's Star Wars. A single divisive film can't sink that franchise, and even the 'hurt' fans still stomping their feet and holding their breaths will be right back on board when the first kicka** trailer for IX drops.

Solo failed for its own reasons, not because there was some kind of protest going on with general audiences. There may have been individuals doing exactly that, and that's their right. But identifying it as the primary reason is awfully delusional, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Solo, in contrast, is fairly evenly okay throughout. Nothing particularly bad, but no moment that makes me go "Wow".

Right? It goes down easy enough, but it's nothing that will stick to your bones.

And when you have a movie that had a lot of 'meh' buzz and interest leading up to its release -- and then some 'meh' reviews and experiences after release -- it really isn't too hard to figure out why the box office was soft.

Loved Rogue 1 and still do. R1 and ANH are all I really need anymore in my Star Wars universe.

I hate the new trilogy and wont bother seeing part 3. Looks like they are bringing the original Lando back and why not? Everyone else is dead. I was going to guess they would kill him too, but probably for some PC reason they wont. or maybe to spare the fans of yet another death of one of their early heros.

I haven't seen Solo either and prob wont until its on TV or Netflix some day. I am doubtful I'll even get it on demand. I am just over Star Wars and what the people in power at Disney are doing, that its hard for me to accept that its just a movie. I never needed an early movie about Han, nor need one about Fett. I got enough of those characters to conclude what they were like anyway, or imagined it as a kid while playing with my toys. While I feel R1 fills in a hole in the over all story arch, Han and Fett are just cash grabs. Its like, 'we don't have any great ideas about new characters, so here are some movies about the characters we've killed off.' Not paying for that.

I love Star Wars for what it did for me as a kid, but its jumped the shark. And while kids might like it, I am sure they do not love it as much as my generation did when the first films came out. I am not sure people are going to care as much about Star Wars 10 years from now as they do today either.

 KTG17 wrote:
Loved Rogue 1 and still do. R1 and ANH are all I really need anymore in my Star Wars universe.

(snip)

I haven't seen Solo either and prob wont until its on TV or Netflix some day. I am doubtful I'll even get it on demand.

I wouldn't consider myself a huge Star Wars fan. I didn't see the original trilogy until I was around 27 or so, and didn't think they were amazing. I also thought Solo looked pretty meh and had zero intentions of seeing it. Han Solo wasn't even that cool of a character IMO.

I kept hearing people loved it, though, so eventually I caught a matinee, and you know what? It was pretty solid honestly.

If you liked R1 you should consider Solo.

 Ouze wrote:

I wouldn't consider myself a huge Star Wars fan. I didn't see the original trilogy until I was around 27 or so, and didn't think they were amazing.

I can completely understand this. Keep in mind I was a little kid when the originals came out, and there just wasn't anything like it. Especially regarding the toys. I think that gets overlooked as to why some adults are so attached to Star Wars. I spent far more time playing with the toys than watching the films, and made up my own stories with my heros, or made up new ones. Lots of great times battling around my bunk bed, backyard, at friends houses, trading or borrowing toys, etc. Its hard to capture that time to younger people because toys have largely been replaced by video games. Had there been no Star Wars toys, I don't doubt that Star Wars would still be a popular film, but I think its the toys that set if from the others at the time. It took the early years of GI Joe to knock Star Wars off the top spot in toy sales some 8 years later. And I really think that is the root at why older fans have been pissed about dissing Han and Luke in the new trilogy. There aren't just characters on a film screen, they are friends we played alongside with so to speak. So to have them treated like stage props to move the story of newer characters that are no where near as interesting, feels like betrayal. That is why I say I have all I need at this point. I don't need the history diluted anymore than it has become.

And its not just the current trilogy's fault. The Prequels are terrible too. We have a long history now where there are more Star Wars films that blow than are actually really awesome.

I also thought Solo looked pretty meh and had zero intentions of seeing it. Han Solo wasn't even that cool of a character IMO.

I kept hearing people loved it, though, so eventually I caught a matinee, and you know what? It was pretty solid honestly.

If you liked R1 you should consider Solo.

What if instead of Solo, they just made up a new character and the story ran alongside the new trilogy? Would it still have been a great story? I feel like the solo part would be interchangeable unless he has some definitive Solo moments...

He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.

I guess it would be interesting if they had just made a new character in place of solo, and ran the story within the current trilogy, with the bad guys being the First Order as opposed to the Empire, not only would it help pave the path forward, but it would actually help cement the First Order as more than a pop-up, fragile group of bad guys. Certainly there is more going on in the universe than the First Order and a small band of rebels no one seems to care about. I think it would have helped the current timeline, which is something it badly needs.

Events going on around the time of the original trilogy are already well defined and considered classic at this point. Given the animosity for the current trilogy, I wonder if they will ever go back and tell any stories within this period once it closes. I bet they do not, which does hurt it. That is one thing that seems to hold this era back: it doesn't feel as expansive or epic as the previous ones. Adding more stories within this timeline would probably help that.

The sequel era is garbage and already unsalvageable. The best thing Disney could do is move to some other era and try to do it right this time.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The sequel era is garbage and already unsalvageable. The best thing Disney could do is move to some other era and try to do it right this time.

I think this is a symptom of a greater problem at Disney. They have been having some problems making movies for a bit. They still make some interesting hits, but they have had problems.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He does have some definitive Solo moments, such as when he meets Chewie and wins the Falcon from Lando. If you replaced him with some other guy, the movie would still be solid, but the characters would seem like rip-offs of Han, Chewie and Lando.

I dunno how that would work. To me, so much of the movie was 'and this was how Han...' that not much would be left if you take him out.

Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.

That's what I meant when I said they would feel like ripoffs. If the film was about smuggler Tandor Itchikan meeting his bestie, Crunchamunchka the Garthok, and out swindling the swindler, Blast Petticoat, people would find the characters derivative. This is not just a generic Star Wars movie with Han Solo and friends shoe-horned in, but a film built around the mythology of Han and Chewie and Lando.

Lucasfilm could have made a standalone adventure movie about the seedy underbelly of the Star Wars universe that did not star Han Solo. Lucasfilm could also have made a standalone war movie about early militant resistance to the Empire that wasn't about stealing the Death Star plans. But the key task of this first wave of Disney Star Wars films is to prove that Disney Star Wars is still "real" Star Wars. So the strategy was to tie all these new movies very closely to the Original Trilogy.

I think Solo was designed to help branch out into the larger universe, hence the surprise end cameo and reference to other characters and events that were not part of the Original Trilogy.

Solo's poor performance is bad news for the brand because Solo was a very good movie, very well made and beautifully populated in terms of set and costume design, and also just very lovely in terms of its balanced tone. I think we would have seen some very good follow up films if this one had done better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OH and shout out to Bob for those great knock off names.

 Galef wrote:
Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.

Yah, good call on that. Also a pretty good movie imo.

 Galef wrote:
Anyone seen "Age of Adeline" ? It is a recent movie that has Harrison Ford in it and there is an actor that plays his character as a young man. That actor WAS a young Harrison Ford.
I wish they got him to be in Solo.

Hey, I completely forgot about that guy. He did look a good deal like Ford and he pulled off many of his mannerisms.
Alden Ehrenreich did a good job in Solo, though, IMO.
Don't know if the Adeline guy could have pulled off Solo like Alden did.
Wonder if he was considered by the casting folks.

If only Solo could have had the awesome narration that Age of Adeline had
"At that very instant, Lando hoped to retrieve the card from his sleeve that would win him not only the hand but the entire game.
What he couldn't have known was that his new human sabaac opponent had flim-flammed the flim-flammer.
Four hundred micro-joules was the exact amount of energy needed for..."

Still haven't gone to see the movie. Wait probably for 5€ DVD when it comes out. TLJ was so bad not feeling like spending much money on new star wars movies and one that's just some background of character. Trailers also don't leave me "must see" feeling.

I am starting to feel this way about movies in general. I used to love going to movies, but felt a lot of it could have been fine renting later. I started reserving movie time for only those movies worth seeing on IMAX or IMAX 3D, or superhero Blockbusters. So when I go I go all out. So me and my girl, $15 a ticket each, then another 20 or so on food and drink, and I am like, this better be good. Most of the time I am ok with the time I have, but there has to be some great visuals to make it worth seeing on that format. So this means I don't go and see dramas or comedies as I don't think they are worth that. I wait till they come out on demand for those.

But lately I am like, well, if I can wait for those, I can wait for the blockbusters too. I have an awesome set up at home with a huge TV and a great sound system. What my home doesn't have is the excitement of the audience, but I am also tired of hearing kids crying at 11pm shows or other disturbances, or missing scenes cause I have to take a piss, so I have come around to realizing that the best seat is probably in my family room.

I waited 2 years for Infinity War and thought I would be first in line but things got messed up with my group of friends and we had a terrible time trying to get everyone together it just didn't happen. At this point I've already seen all the leaked footage (well, I saw that before the film was released here), so I guess that has settled some of that excitement too. Guess I will just wait to see that on demand as well.

So it's not just Disney at fault, I guess my viewing habits and attitudes have changed. I guess maybe I am more critical of the films too, so when I do go, I want it to be worth it. If its not I can think of other things to spend that money on.

I can sympathize with that. Theaters don't do enough to help keep the experience positive. My wife and I stopped going to the cool theaters all the kids use and tend to watch movies at the boring old person theaters. The experience there is still great.

We also have completely opposite viewing habits. We watch movies at home very rarely, usually Star Wars or something our son will enjoy, and on a laptop because we still have our TV in a box in the closet from the last move six years ago. We go to the movies more often than we watch them at home.

In think a lot of this is a change in the generation and how we view movies. Growing up, going to the movies was a treat. You couldn't stream them, and waiting for them to rent seemed to take forever. There was not Redbox or Netflix.
But now, kids have youtube and online gaming. Leaving the house is treated as a choir (at least if you ask my kids).

I still enjoy going to the movies. That excitement is so much a part of my being that no matter how "inconvenient" the experience becomes, I still want the experience. I want to give that experience to my boys, because it meant so much to me as a boy.

I have to say, the biggest disappointment for me is the constant complaining I see on the internet. I actually liked TLJ when I saw it. Sure it wasn't what I "wanted", but stories can be like that and it's ok. I didn't actual accept that is was a "bad movie" until reading over and over online. Yeah, it's bad. But Ep IX can still fix it.

Maybe I am just too optimistic and "choose" to enjoy the movie experience. I "choose" to like TLJ. Because it IS Star Wars. Nothing can change that. It's cannon, you have to accept it. So I choose to like it, with all it's flaws and missed opportunities.

I almost let the criticism and hate for TLJ make me miss out on Solo. I am glad I did not. I saw it opening weekend. I enjoyed it. Maybe it's good, maybe I am just "choosing" to like it.
But for those on the fence, if you want to hate SW because you are recently disappointed, seeing Solo isn't likely to change your mind. If, however, you are willing to give it a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised.

-